BAKULABAI RAMA NAIKWADI Vs. VITHOBA BABAJI BHAGAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard. The petitioners challenge the order passed by the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, on 20th March, 1991 in the revision Application No, MRT/ns/iv/3/89 filed by the respondent against the concurrent orders passed by the lower authorities, namely, by the Sub Divisional officer, Satara, in Tenancy Appeal No. 69 of 1987 on 4th January, 1989 and by the Additional Tahsildar, Karad, on 30th July, 1984 in Tenancy Case No. 227. By the impugned order, the Maharashtra Revenue Tribunal, Pune, while setting aside the orders passed by the lower authorities, had remanded the matter to the additional Tahsildar, Karad, for fresh inquiry.

(2.) The petitioner herein is the landlady and the respondent is the tenant in relation to the suit land situated at village-Pal, Taluka-Karad, District-Satara. Originally the land belonged to Smt. Bakulabai Rama Naikwadi, the landlady, who was a widow on the tiller's day i. e. 1st April, 1957. She expired on 28th december, 1968. She left behind her daughter by name Parubai Sampat Yadav, as the sole legal representative. During the lifetime of Parubai, she had executed the Will Deed in favour of the petitioners, that is how the petitioners acquired ownership to the suit land. Parubai expired on or about 3rd April, 1977.

(3.) The proceedings in terms of the provisions of the Tenancy Act which had commenced in the year 1961 were pending for inquiry, and in the year 1979 the respondent made a statement that Smt. Bakulabai was the widow and that she expired on 28th December, 1968, however, he had not served any notice on the heirs of the deceased landlady within a period of two years from the date of her death informing his willingness to purchase the land. While accepting the said statement, and considering the fact that the tenant had not served any notice expressing the willingness to purchase the land within the specified period in terms of the section 32f read with section 31 of the Tenancy Act, the proceedings under section 32g were disposed of as ineffective. The matter was carried in appeal by the respondent before the Sub Divisional Officer, Satara, without any success. The respondent thereafter preferred revision application wherein the impugned order came to be passed while setting aside the orders passed by the lower authorities and remanded the matter to the Additional tahsildar, Karad, for fresh inquiry as per the law.